Semi-Daily Journal

Yuck.
Almost as bad as his NY Times Mag article last week.

His NY Review of Books stuff is usually, mostly, pretty-much decent, though. Kinda.

I can see why it appeals to the Fisk-bashing, Chomsky-nailing, Hermann-fighting etc etc side of you, though, Brad.

Sorry, forgot to add your Said-bashing.
Happily, you didn't. (Just saw your new/old Orientalism slamming) Way to go, buddy. Jeez.

What these characters prove (for the trillionth time) is simply that there is indeed a Loony Left every bit as dangerous as the Loony Right. Hardly news, as I say, but nevertheless worth pointing out repeatedly, since the Loony Left has far more clout in other democracies than it does in the US. (Incidentally, the last time I read Tariq Ali -- back in the mid-Seventies, when he was a glamorous-looking young fellow who kept turning up on the wall posters of college girls -- he was finding redeeming qualities in Stalin.)

Hmm, interesting article even though he indulges in a lot of hyperbole, some of which is actually dishonest.
When and where did Vidal say that Bush-Cheney junta is as bad as Saddam Hussein? I can understand why Buruma makes the equation - it falls in beautifully with the basic thrust of his article - but I can't understand the basis on which he attributes the equation to Vidal.

As far as Roy goes [though I can easily understand his irritation with her], he is offended by her 'prattling about civil society'. Is he equally indignant when the Bush administration 'prattles about establishing democracy'?

I was also somewhat amused [and taken aback] by his concept of 'moral paralysis' of the left, as evinced by its reaction to non-western tyrants, which might have racist explanations [the coulored people are not to be held to the same standards as us]. Correct me if I'm wrong, but media reports all the atrocities that he talks of, the world reacts [I remember the international condemnation of the Gujarat pogrom very clearly because it pleased me] but the governments of the 'rich and powerful' countries don't choose to act. So does this mean that these countries all have 'leftist' governments?

Anti-Americanism does exist. But it is too pat an explanation for everything which he touches upon. He talks of finding ways to end tyranny in the world that involve more than criticisng American actions. Sure, that is a valid point. But when the US govt. is threatening invasion, does he really expect people to come up with alternate plans of action instead of just focusing on stopping the 'immediate, imminent' blunder?
And how come he doesn't focus on what happened when some countries *did* present an alternate course of action ['Don't invade until the inspectors finish']?

And then there is the question he asks: "But this does not answer the question of what to do, as citizens of the richest and most powerful nations on earth, about dictators who commit mass murder or happily starve millions to death. Why are our left-liberal intellectuals so hopeless at answering this vital question?"

I don't know how many left liberal intellectuals he has asked for the answer [instead of picking up certain lines from their interviews/essays and spinning off an article from them] but I would have thought that the answer to that was obvious, regardless of one's left/right leanings:

1] Establish a world-wide consensus on acceptable rules for the polity and the society or as near world-wide as you can get.
2]A clear time-period within which these basic requirements are to be enforced in all the countries.
3] Spend the aforementioned time-period figuring out the best way to enforce the rules in recalcitrant countries. I guess a show of force *would* be needed for the first few countries but most should fall into line once it becomes obvious that the world opinion is not going to be ignored.
4]Establish an international institution which is empowered to both check the conditions in different countries and recommend a use of force when things look too bad.

If the above seems like too long winded and too multi-lateral and the citizens of the 'richest and the most powerful countries' would like to take action before convincing others that the action is necessary, then for heaven's sake, at least establish a line of communication with the people whom you are trying to free [not the exiles, but the actual sufferers] and *ask* them how they would like to be helped.

It might be racist and isolationist to not want to act on behalf of people suffering from tyranny world-wide [though I am not convinced of that either], but caring about them doesn't give you the right to arbitrarily decide on a way in which to help them. That, imho, is showing contempt for the people you are purporting to care about. That is also the reason why so many people cry 'racism' to Bush's plan of enforced democratisation.It sounds almost exactly the same as the earlier white man's burden - when they came to 'civilize' us. Now they seem to be coming to democratise us and who cares if we don't want to be democratised in that particular way...

The idea that US foreign policy has anything to do with race is just bizarre. The US is a multiracial country with laws against racial discrimination. Mr. Bush's cabinet includes Chinese, blacks, Latinos, Jews, and Arabs. Reading the writings of Mr. Bush's advisers I find not one word in support of the idea of one race dominating another.

The anti-American left has clearly run out of arguments when it is reduced to playing the race card.

As a Chomsky supporter, I agree with each of that article's condemnations. The positions as presented are offensive. However, I'd like to see sources, and of course to see the entire text Buruma is taking his various quotes from. Without that, I won't know if elsewhere these folks address the very issues he raises. People do sometimes address both sides of a question.

The argument for civil society is that you strengthen it _before_ it's overturned by Saddam, Hitler, etc etc, in order to forestall them.

Joe Willingham,
Yeah, the Bush administration just loves its Uncle Toms...so useful as window dressing.

But the real decision-makers in the Bush Admininstration are rich white men who stand to enrich themselves from the policies that they misrepresent.

I get it. An Uncle Tom is a non-white person who thinks for himself or herself, as opposed to playing the left's required role of victim.

There are plenty of things to criticize the Bush administration for, ranging from deficit spending to its rules for the Forest Service. But the charge of racism is a crock.

The charge of male chauvinism won't fly either. Not when Bush's chief of staff was a woman and his chief foreign policy adviser is of the female persuasion.

"Nuri Said, lest people forget, was a pro-western leader, under whose rule Iraq was relatively calm and prosperous."
Well until the bloody revolution anyway.

He'll be calling people objectively pro-Saddam next.

I really liked this article. I had flagged it for reading when I receive my FT week-end; thanks a lot for reminding me to read it thoroughly. I must admit that its conclusion thew me into a state of political meditation. I now admit to myself that I can be a cultural conservative at times. Just as anti-globalisation supporters are actually conservatives.

But there is one way the article is extreme. It takes quotes outside of context and fails to say whether these authors have made accompanying statements that may balance these quotes. Also, it fails to recognize that the even the best intellectuals will be wrong some of the time.

As for myself, I now deeply regret arguing with Professor DeLong over the merits of the no-fly zones. I now believe that they were the best of all worlds for Kurds (even if they resulted in regular casualties.) Mea culpa, I got the lesson. The context was when we were bombarded with incitement to warmonging. But context is no excuse for intellectual looseness.

Oh well, if only Bush and co. were only occasionally wrong... that would almost make them human :-)